Pages

Wednesday, April 28, 2010

Supercarrier Disucssions - Part 2 - Tanking

In a normal Caldari carrier, there is virtually no question that you will fit an active tank with a Capital Shield Booster accompanied by boosters, hardeners, and cap recharge modules to keep that repper running as long as possible.

But in a supercarrier the same equation becomes less clear. After all, there is no Super Capital Shield Booster and the base hit points of the supercarriers makes the repair rate of the module less impressive and a passive tank with extra high resistances very attractive. With 2 million shield points and a 90% resistance across the board, an enemy fleet has to deal 20 million points of damage to get through the shields alone.

With a base of 1.3 million hitpoints and minimal resists its not that impressive but I wanted to show the starting point.

The current fitting uses a typical carrier resistance boost, hitpoint boost, and local repair:
The problem is that is with all the high slot modules deactivated and 13 minutes is not a very long capital engagement, especially if you include the jump in hit to capacitor. Still you can see the impact of the higher resistances as the effective hit points jumps from 4 million to almost 19 million. (Note: this setup and the following include some implants as well for boosting shield hitpoints.)

If we forgo the Capital Shield Booster and the CCC rigs, we can add some more Explosion resistance and a million shield hitpoints boosting the effective hit points by 12 million. That means an enemy fleet has a lot of points to chew through and its not as vulnerable to capacitor running dry. In a typical fleet situation, even a small amount of remote repping will make the supercarrier nearly impossible to take down without a significant enemy capital fleet.

I realize that "dream" setups and EFT-warrioring is no substitute for critical thinking and experience. I'm leaning towards the massive 31.8 million EHP buffer tank but I'm hoping commenters will chime in and give their opinions based on their experiences.

3 comments:

I still prefer the aeons fully passive 47mil efhp buffer tank. no cap use with pretty much the largest buffer in the game. (damage control doesnt really count as cap use hehe) best part is that uber tank only costs 3 bil which isnt that much when compared to the hull cost.

Hey Kirith thanks to your link to the article about the T2 v T1 Meta 4 stuff that was done in the EvE Tribune.

As for you Wyvern, my only thought is about protection from HIC. As I see it a HIC is possibly the only reason ( or a light dictor) that you would ever be trapped. As such Cap = life specifically over 72% cap to jump out w/ an emergency Cyno.

I would go for the Passive Tank with the cap stable at 92% Even IF they tackle you you'll still live a bit longer I think in the passive tank AND still ahve the ability to jump.

a super carriers defence against hics/dics is smartbombs and the ecm burst. warp disrupt probes are vulnerable to bombs and smartbombs, and then the key is to neut any hictors that have bubbles up around you. now saying that and doing that during combat are two completely different things hehe.

p.s. I forgot to include implant cost for the fit above to get 47mil efhp out of an aeon you need a slave set increaseing cost of the fit to 5bil.

ARCHIVES

COPYRIGHT NOTICE

EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. CCP hf. has granted permission to ninveah.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, ninveah.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.